3.0 Crime rules leads to marooning

[Bortas]

A game that intentionally wedges players into locked scenarios like this is foolishness.

Absolutely agree... if a player wants to play in an "interplanetary shuttle" for a while, this shouldn't sentence him to lose his ship, having to chose the freewinder option, upon an accident like friendly fire.

It's most likely just another oversight. I'm 100% certain, support will help him out of this situation upon filing a ticket. It will also bring the devs' attention to the issue.

 

[kofeyh]

So basically, save some players from their own stupidity by removing their choices, even if they are bad choices to be made? Purposely extreme downsizing the FSD is something that a surprising number or players do...

No? A game that intentionally locks players so they are "stuck" with zero choices, beyond a complete ship loss (electing starter-winder, or save delete) is not something I will ever support. I don't care what the scenario is. You don't shove players into a room, remove all the doors and then say "well, it's your own fault".

The transport system should either deny transport to a system where there is no star within the jump range (it doesn't warn of this risk iirc) or Frontier has to fundimentally rethink how the broad lock-down of services interacts with the actual game they've built; you can't offer a bunch of choices, and then globally invalidate when convenient.

There are any number of ways of getting a bounty; not all are intentional. Even with the best discipline, the best situational awareness, mistakes can happen; and this can create complete game locks where people become stuck (again, before this we had people low on fuel, who were stuck). This creates frustration, and that's never good.

--

I have every expectation that Frontier has not gone out of their way to do this. It's just the myriad of possible outcomes, and even with the best of intent, Frontier simply cannot account for them all. I am sure they will see this happening, and review if this sort of 'lock' is healthy or not. And then address accordingly.

I don't think Sandy set out to shove commanders into small rooms and then remove all the doors, to be fair, that doesn't seem to be the intent.

 

[Straha Yeagar]

No? A game that intentionally locks players so they are "stuck" with zero choices, beyond a save reset, is not something I will ever support. I don't care what the scenario is. You don't shove players into a room, remove all the doors and then say "well, it's your own fault".

The transport system should either deny transport to a system where there is no star within the jump range, or Frontier has to fundimentally rethink how the broad lock-down of services interacts with the actual game they've built; you can't offer a bunch of choices, and then globally invalidate when convenient.

There are any number of ways of getting a bounty; not all are intentional. Even with the best discipline, the best situational awareness, mistakes can happen; and this can create complete game locks where people become stuck (again, before this we had people low on fuel, who were stuck). This creates frustration, and that's never good.

Or perhaps force fit FSD's based on mass like they do shields and thrusters...and the whiners had better just shut the hell up if they do that.

 

[thefomo]

Where did you respawn? This should have taken you to a detention centre, afaik.

Respawned in Searfoss Vision, CPC 20 6743. That's where the current community challenge is.

 

[kofeyh]

Or perhaps force fit FSD's based on mass like they do shields and thrusters...and the whiners had better just shut the hell up if they do that.

Honestly? I don't care. The point stands. A game that intentionally locks players, isn't good for long term health. It's not unreasonable for a game to avoid locking players, where at all possible.

Super-low jump range (of a few ships at this point) combined with a mechanic that forces players to leave a system to repent their sins (let's be honest, IF is now a catholic priest, more than a legal institution), on the back of a transport system that, ostensibly, ignores ship jump range potential, is certainly an interesting choice by Frontier.

Frontier has removed a number of avenues for people to self-resolve the issue of becoming wanted, and I (personally) believe that if you want the player base to accept harsher punishments as part of improving the costs of crime (and or even making it more structured) you can't really simultaneously pull the rug out as well.

It's counter-productive. Moderation. I wish to hell frontier would embrace it.

 

[Jethzk]

OP made a mistake, OP is willing to admit that and even pay the rebuy. The game is not allowing them to move on. It's a clear design flaw that needs to be addressed. I'd suggest a support ticket.

 

[Straha Yeagar]

Honestly? I don't care. The point stands. A game that intentionally locks players, isn't good for long term health. It's not unreasonable for a game to avoid locking players, where at all possible.

Super-low jump range (of a few ships at this point) combined with a mechanic that forces players to leave a system to repent their sins (let's be honest, IF is now a catholic priest, more than a legal institution), on the back of a transport system that, ostensibly, ignores ship jump range potential, is certainly an interesting choice by Frontier.

Frontier has removed a number of avenues for people to self-resolve the issue of becoming wanted, and I (personally) believe that if you want the player base to accept harsher punishments as part of improving the costs of crime (and or even making it more structured) you can't really simultaneously pull the rug out as well.

It's counter-productive. Moderation. I wish to hell frontier would embrace it.

More precisely would be a game that allows a players choices and actions to lock themselves. And I have no problems with that.

 

[kofeyh]

More precisely would be a game that allows a players choices and actions to lock themselves. And I have no problems with that.

If it adequately communicates? Sure. But that's an entirely different conversation, isn't it. Respect your views (and I agree with a few of them), but on the topic of arbitrary player locks? We won't agree. Consequences are fine; 'locking' players is an entirely different concern, and it's not healthy to predicate the notion that locking is a good consequence solution. They are almost universally not, and will never be functionally equivalent.

Confusing the two, serves no good purpose. Been good to have a civil conversation. o7

 

[Robin of Spiritwood]

Or perhaps force fit FSD's based on mass like they do shields and thrusters...and the whiners had better just shut the hell up if they do that.

Seems a reasonable option.
Getting stuck permanently in-system inadvertently should not be allowed.

 

[DaMorgs]

I'm torn on this one. He's fitted an FSD purely because he had to, without looking at whether he could even leave the system he's currently in. In my mind that's foolish. Yes I think maybe support should help him here, but really, he made his own bed.

 

[vindicator jones]

And this is once again a reminder that combat ship limitation via range is a very daft thing to have institutionalised.

I will never, EVER understand the reasoning that combat ships should have poor jump range.. It is one thing that really irks me.. And I hate the excuse that they have to be balanced against Multirole or other activity type ships...

The balance comes from internal optional module slots... There is no way a FDL can compete against a python for doing trade runs... Hell. if that is such a concern, how about having combat specific slots that you can only install combat modules into, such as interdictors, HRP's, SCB's But cant install cargo racks or passenger modules..

Nerfing the jump range on combat ships, is purely a QOL issue, not a balance issue.

 

[kofeyh]

I'm torn on this one. He's fitted an FSD purely because he had to, without looking at whether he could even leave the system he's currently in. In my mind that's foolish. Yes I think maybe support should help him here, but really, he made his own bed.

The thing to bare in mind, is the player transferred the ship, and it is currently possible to be at a station with only low level FSD drives that may be insufficient to allow the ship to leave, because Frontier have created artificial scarcity of modules.

So there is 100% potential for a player to get stuck because they can't:

a) buy an appropriate FSD at the destination system, even if they wanted to
b) ship transfer ignores current FSD potential, regardless of where it's being recalled to
c) outfitting is locked the moment a bounty is created
d) even if they transfer in a larger FSD, they cannot access this because outfitting becomes locked
e) cannot recall another ship to then use it to leave and go visit the local priest for absolution

I really don't think this is entirely intentional from Frontier; more it's complicated choices meets immovable object.

 

[Vedmo]

It begs the question, why does an FSD that can't even jump a ship to the next system even exist?

 

[Straha Yeagar]

I'm torn on this one. He's fitted an FSD purely because he had to, without looking at whether he could even leave the system he's currently in. In my mind that's foolish. Yes I think maybe support should help him here, but really, he made his own bed.

I think this is a case where a combat player used the strategy of purposely underfitting an FSD once in system so they can eek out an extra few m/s due to lower mass. This was no accident, or ignorance. This was purposely done knowing full well what the risks were. That is a different issue than the punishment mechanic. I would be fine if a commander couldn't get out of the system due to their outfitting, that a self destruct put them in a detention center in a starting sidewinder with no option for rebuy. That way they aren't stuck, but also learn a very important lesson...sort of like the shieldless trader that get blown up with 50 million in cargo.

It begs the question, why does an FSD that can't even jump a ship to the next system even exist?

Depends on the ship...Putting a low end FSD intended for a sidewinder onto a Vulture...hell, a 2e can be put on a Corvette.

 

[Backelaer]

No? A game that intentionally locks players so they are "stuck" with zero choices, beyond a complete ship loss (electing starter-winder, or save delete) is not something I will ever support. I don't care what the scenario is. You don't shove players into a room, remove all the doors and then say "well, it's your own fault".

However they didn't remove the doors. OP handed in the key to those very doors himself.

And he can get out of it; just let himself be killed by an npc and he'll spawn at a prison ship. If it was friendly fire, it'll be a small bounty. Nothing to get so fussed over.

 

[uliando]

For misfire it sure is harsh punishment, but never assume you won't misfire. Anyway if you're a filthy pirate, then you deserved this fully.

 

[kofeyh]

I will never, EVER understand the reasoning that combat ships should have poor jump range..

I've yet to hear a relevant reason, particularly in the light of engineering, which allows Anaconda, a military ship, to break 70 LY. Whatever reason existed 4 years ago, has little relevance now. And it's stuff like the absolution via priest, and station facility locking that really highlight how much jump range being criminally low, has only served to make the situation worse.

As you say; internals (and utility) are the balance point. Jump-range is just causing more harm than good, at this point. Given how many ships have already seen FSD improvements, I think even the developer has probably realised this.

 

[Vedmo]

I think this is a case where a combat player used the strategy of purposely underfitting an FSD once in system so they can eek out an extra few m/s due to lower mass. This was no accident, or ignorance. This was purposely done knowing full well what the risks were. That is a different issue than the punishment mechanic. I would be fine if a commander couldn't get out of the system due to their outfitting, that a self destruct put them in a detention center in a starting sidewinder with no option for rebuy. That way they aren't stuck, but also learn a very important lesson...sort of like the shieldless trader that get blown up with 50 million in cargo.



Depends on the ship...Putting a low end FSD intended for a sidewinder onto a Vulture...hell, a 2e can be put on a Corvette.

Doh, it never occurred to me going down in numbers on it, was think an e-rated of the max size, nevermind.

 

[kofeyh]

And he can get out of it; just let himself be killed by an npc and he'll spawn at a prison ship.

Op tried suicide; it didn't move him, even though they have a bounty. They are already wanted and have a bounty; if they were going to prison, it'd have already moved them on the last 'death', as far as I know?

So dispatching a few more ships, or being shot at, may not resolve, given it didn't for the first loss? If there is a prison ship in the same system, then they are screwed anyway.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

What about someone who is in a FDL in Quince who gets a 400cr bounty?

They aren't going to get anywhere, regardless of what size FD they have. Nor can they swap to a long range ship parked in a station in Quince. So did they make a foolish choice that requires a game restart?